Author
Topic: thank you, Dear Abby! (Read 23660 times)

'Most single men I know also put a premium on a woman's appearance. Why don't women understand this?

I do understand this. And I think most single women do grasp that most men are attracted to "pretty girls". Unfortunately, men like you are bypassing 90% of the available pool.

Now you understand this: I am over 50, I work out at least three times a week, eat healthy and have few unhealthy habits. I am not now, nor have I ever been "traffic stopping gorgeous", however, I have a great sense of humor, I can cook pretty darn well, I am well read and up on current events of the world and I am financially stable. I am not interested in your money and you do not have to have a fantastic body to attract my attention. I am not a stalker and I am not insanely jealous of anyone I am seeing, I am sane and average looking.

I am not trolling for a purely physically attractive man (although they don't hurt my eyes). I prefer my men a little fluffy and I have never met a bald man I didn't adore. I want a partner that is just that - a partner. Someone that has a brain, works out with me ocassionally or regularly, participates in cooking and running a household and has similar values and enjoys some of the things I do. This is what most single women put a premium on, why don't men understand this?

Unfortunately, YOU have come off as a shallow conceited pig. You wonder where all the pretty women are? Hiding from the likes of you!

If he wishes to only find an attractive woman, the advice to go to the gym was spot on. But it's a shame for a person to only look on the outside before finding out what they are like on the inside. And it is shallow to make that your first criteria in seeking a love interest.

Even the gym might not satisfy him though. Depending on his vision of what a woman should do or be a woman who goes to the gym regularly does not automatically do her hair and make-up to his standards. She might not have the chest size he prefers. She might not wear heels or clothes that impress him. Maybe her car is a bit disappointing. There might be a few flaws in the package even though she is technically healthy. Since he seems convinced that all women in his age group don't understand I kind of doubt the gym would provide a woman who was "enough" for him.

But it's a shame for a person to only look on the outside before finding out what they are like on the inside. And it is shallow to make that your first criteria in seeking a love interest.

I could not disagree more, for reasons already expressed in this thread. I think valid arguments lose oomph when statements like this are made. Looks are not everything in a romantic relationship - far from it. But to say that a person is shallow for valuing appearance does not compute for me. Why would anyone want to be romantically with someone they are not physcially attracted to?

But it's a shame for a person to only look on the outside before finding out what they are like on the inside. And it is shallow to make that your first criteria in seeking a love interest.

I could not disagree more, for reasons already expressed in this thread. I think valid arguments lose oomph when statements like this are made. Looks are not everything in a romantic relationship - far from it. But to say that a person is shallow for valuing appearance does not compute for me. Why would anyone want to be romantically with someone they are not physcially attracted to?

Nobody is saying it can't be a criterion. Nobody at all. It's just that if it's your (general you) primary consideration, you're just setting yourself up for dissatisfaction. Even if your partner keeps going to the gym their whole life, the simple fact of human bodies is that they change. Your partner will age. Your partner may become seriously ill. At the very least you'll see them with the flu! There has to be some "glue" other than beauty to hold a relationship together or it won't work in the long term. These are the people you see going through new partners like socks. And serial monogamy is fine if that's what you want, but for those looking for a stable long-term relationship, there has to be physical attraction and other ways the person appeals to you.

But it's a shame for a person to only look on the outside before finding out what they are like on the inside. And it is shallow to make that your first criteria in seeking a love interest.

I could not disagree more, for reasons already expressed in this thread. I think valid arguments lose oomph when statements like this are made. Looks are not everything in a romantic relationship - far from it. But to say that a person is shallow for valuing appearance does not compute for me. Why would anyone want to be romantically with someone they are not physcially attracted to?

Again no one is saying that. No even close. They are saying it shouldn't be the first thing., the premium thing, the ultimate thing. Of course looks play a part in romance. But if they are the most important, the first and primary thing, then it is a shallow thing by the very definition of shallow - the interest goes no deeper then looks. The person could be dumb as rock, a mean nasty puppy kicker, have totally opposing values and goals but they are hot so you have a romance with them? That is shallow. That's what shallow means - not deep. All anyone is saying is that romantic interest should be deeper then just looks.

To want a full package to include good looks? That's fine. No one is disputing that. But that not shallow because a full package by default includes more then just outward appearances.

But it's a shame for a person to only look on the outside before finding out what they are like on the inside. And it is shallow to make that your first criteria in seeking a love interest.

I could not disagree more, for reasons already expressed in this thread. I think valid arguments lose oomph when statements like this are made. Looks are not everything in a romantic relationship - far from it. But to say that a person is shallow for valuing appearance does not compute for me. Why would anyone want to be romantically with someone they are not physcially attracted to?

TD, are you not reading the "first criteria" part that everyone is talking about?

And first impressions, when talking about attraction, are not always a good thing to go by. I have met people that I thought perfectly plain, at first. Then, the more that I got to know them, the more I knew about their personality and interests, the more attractive they became to me.

Looks fade. Accidents happen. People get sick. They gain weight or lose weight. IMO, making looks your Number 1 priority is shallow because we are all going to get old eventually. None of us look like we did at 21 anymore.

But you are essentially calling me, and people like me, shallow for valuing appearance. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics?

For me, it is no where near the only thing or the most important thing and I have never said it was. It is, however, the FIRST thing. It is a threshold. I don't find you attractive? I am not going to romantically pursue you. And I do not think that is shallow. Why would I waste time pursuing a romantic relationship with someone I am not attracted to? I do not think it is at all shallow to only date people I am attracted to.

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

But it's a shame for a person to only look on the outside before finding out what they are like on the inside. And it is shallow to make that your first criteria in seeking a love interest.

I could not disagree more, for reasons already expressed in this thread. I think valid arguments lose oomph when statements like this are made. Looks are not everything in a romantic relationship - far from it. But to say that a person is shallow for valuing appearance does not compute for me. Why would anyone want to be romantically with someone they are not physcially attracted to?

I stand by it. How many people are being overlooked that might already be on a plan to lose the weight/exercise etc. Or is willing to diet/exercise with their new love interest and make it a shared activity. We are all entitled to our opinions. I can honestly say that looks are not what attracts me and actually turns me off. I have turned down "pretty" boys when friends tell me I am nuts. But after speaking with them and realizing they are all about looks and takes pleasure in looking good, it's just something that doesn't interest me. I am fit, have some of the wow factor but it isn't ME. Now with that said, I never said you were shallow, you already stated that it's one of the many things you look for and not the only criteria. And that's fine, I am glad you are looking at the total package.

But you are essentially calling me, and people like me, shallow for valuing appearance. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics?

For me, it is no where near the only thing or the most important thing and I have never said it was. It is, however, the FIRST thing. It is a threshold. I don't find you attractive? I am not going to romantically pursue you. And I do not think that is shallow. Why would I waste time pursuing a romantic relationship with someone I am not attracted to? I do not think it is at all shallow to only date people I am attracted to.

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

I do have to admit, I've never had someone's charming personality catch my eye across a crowded room. I've met good looking guys who ended up not being a romantic prospect, and I've met not so good looking guys who ended up being way better of an option. In the end though, I was always attracted by something physical from the beginning.

This guy does sound a bit..... extreme on the demandingness. But hey, at least he didn't specify that the ladies had to be 23-28 and Harvard educated as well!

Logged

My inner (r-word) is having a field day with this one.-Love is Evol: Christopher Titus-

But you are essentially calling me, and people like me, shallow for valuing appearance. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics?

For me, it is no where near the only thing or the most important thing and I have never said it was. It is, however, the FIRST thing. It is a threshold. I don't find you attractive? I am not going to romantically pursue you. And I do not think that is shallow. Why would I waste time pursuing a romantic relationship with someone I am not attracted to? I do not think it is at all shallow to only date people I am attracted to.

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

OK, I think where we're misunderstanding you is that you mean "first as in chronologically" but it sometimes sounds like "first as in most important." It's certainly not an invalid place to start when casting around for a partner.

I've actually had the experience where I got to know someone as a friend, thinking them looks-neutral, and then becoming attracted to them as I got to know them better. So, yes, the attraction was there before I pursued the person romantically, even if it wasn't there upon first meeting the person platonically. Probably not everyone works that way. But of course there's no point in dating someone you're not attracted to at all. On the other hand it's useful to understand that they will not always be attractive in the moment--i.e. my boyfriend is hot, but he doesn't look like Fabio when he has the stomach flu, and that's OK!